Apple, MPAA, RIAA attack DRM circumvention requests

Apple has issued a strident defense of iPhone DRM, calling it a business model issue that the Copyright Office has no busy intruding upon. The EFF begs to differ. Welcome to another installment of "DMCA Triennial Anticircumvention Exception Wars," one in which rightsholders are terrified at slip-sliding down that slippery slope to total DRM circumvention.

Wow, EFF has nothing better to do now than lobby for jailbreaking the iPhone? Tinkerers can tinker all they want, jailbreaking can and is being done now, but as with the examples of shadetree tinkerers and their autos, tinker at your own risk. You can homebrew your psp all you want, but is sony gonna protect you if you use some bits you found on the net and it fries your psp? They answer is a simple no. They have no right to be out there lobbying for protection for jailbreaking when its patently illegal and number two, most jailbreakers are also likely to use apps that circumvent drm placed in the app store to effectively STEAL apps that developers have created for sale in the marketplace. So yeah, as Application developers Im sure we would support a court ecosystem that encourages people to circumvent mechanisms put in place to ensure that I'm compensated appropriately for my work.

Apple is completely in the wrong, technical protections do not deserve any legal protection. You should be able to choose one or the other but not both. That jailbreaking permits illegitimate uses is immaterial; there are demonstrably many completely legitimate uses that are enabled as well, and the existence of the former doesn't take away from the utility of the latter.

Of course the real issue is that the DMCA is a quite (though not entirely) rotten law that should not have been passed in the first place and all of the anti-circumvention parts of it should be repealed as soon as possible.

Originally posted by biggstuu:Wow, EFF has nothing better to do now than lobby for jailbreaking the iPhone? Tinkerers can tinker all they want, jailbreaking can and is being done now, but as with the examples of shadetree tinkerers and their autos, tinker at your own risk.

You tinker at your own risk biggstuu, but that's not the same thing as tinkering being illegal. Is that particularly hard to comprehend for you?

quote:

You can homebrew your psp all you want, but is sony gonna protect you if you use some bits you found on the net and it fries your psp? They answer is a simple no.

Yes the answer is no, they won't "protect you" (by which I assume you mean "it voids the warranty"), but Sony should not be able to sue you either.

quote:

They have no right to be out there lobbying for protection for jailbreaking when its patently illegal and number two, most jailbreakers are also likely to use apps that circumvent drm placed in the app store to effectively STEAL apps that developers have created for sale in the marketplace.

What the fuck are you talking about!? Every citizen of the United States has the right to lobby for anything they fucking want. Don't like it? Go back to whatever third world shithole you came from, here we at least have, however rigged the system is in practice, some built-in input methods for the general people. The EFF or anyone else can lobby all they want

It's just mind boggling how dumb your logic is there. The entire point of lobbying for "protection for jailbreaking" is that it's "patently illegal" DUH. What, are you suggesting they lobby for exemptions for things that aren't covered by the law? What? Also, nice work pulling statistics directly from your asshole with "most jailbreakers" there, particularly given that jailbreaking happened long, long before there even was an App Store with stuff to pirate.

Of course the real issue is that the DMCA is a quite (though not entirely) rotten law that should not have been passed in the first place and all of the anti-circumvention parts of it should be repealed as soon as possible.

Agreed. With the exception of the Safe Harbor provisions, the DMCA has effectively done nothing to slow piracy and a lot to increase the burden on the tax payer. Our legal system has been exploited to support the dying business model of the music industry and the unsuspecting public have had to foot the bill. If there is one thing that I would like to see, it is a major re-write of the whole damn law.

I'm pretty hopeful that Apple will lose this argument. Apple has always been pretty stingy about defending their ideas (and in many cases, understandably so). This idea that jailbreaking a phone that the user paid for, to perform many very legitimate tasks that the user is simply not given permission to do at time of purchase....it's ridiculous to claim this violates anything other than a very, very minor copyright. And fortunately, there's already precedent on the books for this being ok. This sounds a lot more like Apple wanting to play "Daddy knows best" than "You're stealing from us!".

As for ripping movies for personal/educational purpose, the DVD CCA's defense of their stance is insulting at best. For starters, a teacher has to send in a request to use a clip of a movie in a classroom for educational purposes? Heaven help the ones comparing several movies from different studios. And this only possible to teachers who know how to apply for this kind of request. College film professors, sure. A high school teacher with limited resources, and little experience in the field? Not likely. I know my high school was dirt poor, with passionate, if not privileged, teachers. To do a study on a recent movie would be a legal nightmare for these teachers, from their perspective.

I still find it very difficult, also, to explain to my friends why *technically* creating digital copies of my movies on my computer for easier playback is illegal. "Well, you see, there's this thing called CSS that prevents making duplicates, and according to the DMCA, Title 17, Section 1201, circumvention of copyright protection systems is illegal." "But can't you make back up copies of CDs on your computer?" "........Yes." *blank stare*

Originally posted by xoa:Apple is completely in the wrong, technical protections do not deserve any legal protection. You should be able to choose one or the other but not both. That jailbreaking permits illegitimate uses is immaterial; there are demonstrably many completely legitimate uses that are enabled as well, and the existence of the former doesn't take away from the utility of the latter.

Where are all those Apple fans saying "but Apple is against DRM!"? This makes me regret purchasing an Ipod years ago. I can at least rest comfortably, because I purchased it used and thus didn't fuel their DRM craze.

I just don't understand how they sucker in average people with shiny hardware that scratches very easily, has a poor amplifier/battery, and limited file format support.

I do agree that the Apple argument is superficial at most. Although a question comes up regarding their argument. If jailbreaking allows users to install/run programs that were not meant to be put on the original, then how can you restore the iphone/itouch and it looks like nothing was ever done to it?

If Apple loses this argument, it won't be so bad for Apple as it will for console makers. Apple is doing the same thing they are (restricting the applications that are allowed to run on them), and other than Nintendo, console makers tend to sell advanced hardware at a loss and make the money back through licensing fees. Their entire business model can be destroyed by a ruling against Apple, and as a gamer, I would rather not see that happen.

Originally posted by bokuwaomar:If Apple loses this argument, it won't be so bad for Apple as it will for console makers. Apple is doing the same thing they are (restricting the applications that are allowed to run on them), and other than Nintendo, console makers tend to sell advanced hardware at a loss and make the money back through licensing fees. Their entire business model can be destroyed by a ruling against Apple, and as a gamer, I would rather not see that happen.

I disagree with you. Their "entire business model" is, most simply, this: "let's make playing games very easy and convenient. Because humans are lazy, or perhaps more accurately they have better things to do with their time then screw around making stuff work."

That, in fact, is the underlying business idea behind a ton of services and businesses, and one that the media industry in theory should get though in practice most of them idiotically do not. So, even if they are legal (and what's the difference, really, in having an exemption given that whatever the law says mods are widely and easily available anyway?), how many people do you honestly think are going to go to the trouble? How many people can even be counted on to ever buy a new peripheral for a console? Tiny fractions of the market, the entire bloody point of getting a console for most people is to do away with all the crap that often comes with PC gaming. They aren't going to crack their cases open and mess with the insides even if it is 100% happy legit and makes American flags pop out the vents. Too much work. I think most of the current market won't bother to pirate as long as piracy is not significantly more compelling then normal gaming, and no, being able to "save" $40 at the expense of significant time is not compelling unless someone's time has no value or they get something else out of it (example, they enjoy the challenge of doing it more then actually playing).

"If modifications of the the OS were to interfere with these control functions [volume governors, temperature sensors, charging circuitry], even unintentionally, the phone could be physically damaged or the battery could be overcharged." .... "

Operative word there is the first one: "if." You can smell the FUD a mile away. On the other hand, everytime Apple introduces updated firmware for the iPhone that too represents and opportunity for Apple to brick the thing. We assume it won't happen.

quote:

"If modifications of the the OS were to interfere with these control functions [volume governors, temperature sensors, charging circuitry], even unintentionally, the phone could be physically damaged or the battery could be overcharged." .... "

xoa, my concern isn't that people will pirate more, but that developers will simply produce unlicensed software, making it impossible (or at least more difficult) for console makers to subsidize their hardware. The PS3 and 360 cost over $1000 to produce when they were launched. If gamers have to buy a $1000 PS4 or 720 next time around, it will certainly be for the worse.

bokuwaomarxoa, my concern isn't that people will pirate more, but that developers will simply produce unlicensed software, making it impossible (or at least more difficult) for console makers to subsidize their hardware. The PS3 and 360 cost over $1000 to produce when they were launched. If gamers have to buy a $1000 PS4 or 720 next time around, it will certainly be for the worse.

It was stupid of them to subsidize the hardware to begin with. Nintendo didn't and they are currently the market leader this generation. Subsidization is a new trend, and one that needs to die off.

The slippery slope argument is a slippery slope, if it stands. Imagine all of the things we could do if we just needed to be afraid of what might/would happen if we didn't.

In a fictional world, for example, shall I install violent traps to protect my home? Imagine a world where a thief, murderer or rapist knew that one mis-step meant being sprayed with poison darts or cut in two by a giant ax.

In America, we can't have violent traps because of "fair use." Those traps would pose a risk to people trying to legally enter the property.

However in the fictional world, violent traps are a well established practice. Mailmen, police, firemen, plumbers, home inspectors, and so forth are pushing for the right to temporarily disarm traps.

The proponents of violent traps could argue (quoted from the article), "Once the technology is legally circumvented, the ability to limit the scope of the use of the circumvention may well be impossible, thereby undermining the whole system." When the issue goes to court, judges would rule in favor of property rights, citing the 2009 DMCA decision. In the brief the judge would declare, "The risk to property owners is too great. We can not force a property holder to allow legal access if it will compromise the security of their property."

Nagumo, while I agree that Sony and Microsoft were stupid to subsidize their consoles to the degree they did, next gen consoles will still need to cost more to pay for R&D since Microsoft and Sony will no longer be able to profit from software sales over the lifetime of their consoles. They will only be able to make money of of hardware sales, and that is a one time transaction. Either prices will go up or consoles will end up being refreshed more often to maintain sales. The former is bad for gamers and the latter turns console gaming into PC gaming. No one wins.

Originally posted by lost_soul:Where are all those Apple fans saying "but Apple is against DRM!"? This makes me regret purchasing an Ipod years ago. I can at least rest comfortably, because I purchased it used and thus didn't fuel their DRM craze.

I just don't understand how they sucker in average people with shiny hardware that scratches very easily, has a poor amplifier/battery, and limited file format support.

Um, because for the average people the iPod was better than the alternative?

Last I checked, the Zune was the first real competitive alternative and it was released 5 years later.

Originally posted by bokuwaomar:Nagumo, while I agree that Sony and Microsoft were stupid to subsidize their consoles to the degree they did, next gen consoles will still need to cost more to pay for R&D since Microsoft and Sony will no longer be able to profit from software sales over the lifetime of their consoles.

That's not true, at all. It's like saying TVs need to cost more to pay for R&D since Sony et al will no longer be able to profit from DVD sales over the lifetime of their consoles.

Microsoft and Sony will profit as long as fun/good games exist.

In fact, that is why Nintendo is winning. Fancy that.

quote:

They will only be able to make money of of hardware sales, and that is a one time transaction.

Not if they release the equivalent to the Wii Fit, Wii Play, Mario Kart, etc. Every "transaction" is profit.

quote:

Either prices will go up or consoles will end up being refreshed more often to maintain sales.

Or, the third option. They make fun games. They make better games.

quote:

The former is bad for gamers and the latter turns console gaming into PC gaming. No one wins.

bokuwaomarNagumo, while I agree that Sony and Microsoft were stupid to subsidize their consoles to the degree they did, next gen consoles will still need to cost more to pay for R&D since Microsoft and Sony will no longer be able to profit from software sales over the lifetime of their consoles. They will only be able to make money of of hardware sales, and that is a one time transaction. Either prices will go up or consoles will end up being refreshed more often to maintain sales. The former is bad for gamers and the latter turns console gaming into PC gaming. No one wins.

Funny. Atari seemed o do very well for a good long time with an unlicensed system. Nintendo makes tons of money from first party software and hardware. Failing business models should fail, not be propped up by obtuse anti-consumer laws.

If Apple wins this case, I can see Microsoft trying to inject Windows code into the BIOS of PCs to stop us from having a choice of what OS to run. "The power of the DMCA compels you to use our software!"

Call me a simpleton, but I look at devices like cars. Yes, you purchase them--typically--as a complete package. Yes, their designs are protected from reproduction. But if I want to, say, tint my windows or, perhaps, put new rims on my car--or even modify the engine block, boring out the cylinders for a little boost--it may be dangerous and patently stupid, but the auto company has no right to tell me who can do the work, what parts can be used, or how I acquire the parts. I'm sorry if XX Cary Co.'s parts can't compete with YY's after market parts.

Although I enjoy Apple products, the iPhone was dead on arrival to me because of the fact that they do everything they can think of to prevent me from using it one whatever GMS carrier I prefer. Even not being able to operate the hardware in the manner I see fit irks me. As mentioned above, I see these things like I see cars--or any other consumer product, for that matter--and, sometimes, I just don't care about my warrantee. Sending out an update that may or may not be stable on jailbroken iPhones is one thing, but to break the things on purpose is downright hostile.

Originally posted by lost_soul:If Apple wins this case, I can see Microsoft trying to inject Windows code into the BIOS of PCs to stop us from having a choice of what OS to run. "The power of the DMCA compels you to use our software!"

Um, if they wanted to they already could. They do it on the XBox 360, after all.

Seeing as how you have a license to use the software and do not own it, versus you own the car (unless you lease it), I see this going nowhere. Of course tinkering is legal under our copyright system.

Look, that's just how Apple rolls, and millions of people don't give a crap about their DRM. I look at the iphone though and see it as a DRM infested plague, and I'm very happy with my unlocked phone with no restrictions on it.

The ipod sold because of the stupid dancing silohettes and their constant advertising. The average person didn't even know other mp3 players existed because none of them advertise. Heck, Apple is the only people who advertise every stupid feature of the iphone.

The latest iphone commerical demoing the apps: "Hey iphone, guess who also has the ebay app? The Palm 7, and that device preceeds you by 9 years! Your the last person on the block to have apps!"

OrangeCream: While that's fine for Nintendo which makes both the hardware and the games, Sony isn't a software company and Microsoft is not really a game company. If they are forced to make money off their hardware, they will need to update it regularly like any other hardware company and developers won't have a console to target for 5+ years. Console games will be no different from PC games at that point.

Nagumo: Sure, it can be done, but a lot of things we take for granted like powerful consoles with custom hardware that are available for less than a comparable PC on their launch date will be impossible. There are pros and cons for each approach, and for the sake of innovation, both should be possible and allowed to compete in the marketplace. Let consumers vote with their wallets instead of playing market cop.

Originally posted by bokuwaomar:OrangeCream: While that's fine for Nintendo which makes both the hardware and the games, Sony isn't a software company

They should be; it's why they keep losing to the iPod and iPhone... software IS the new hardware...

quote:

and Microsoft is not really a game company.

They should be; it's why they keep losing to GAME companies like Sony, first, then Nintendo, second.

quote:

If they are forced to make money off their hardware, they will need to update it regularly like any other hardware company

Um, no, not if they make and sell games and services... PS Store? XBox Live Arcade? Wii Shop? First party games?

quote:

and developers won't have a console to target for 5+ years. Console games will be no different from PC games at that point.

They already aren't; except for Nintendo, which makes a difference because there are no PC games like the Wii Fit or Wii Sports.

quote:

Nagumo: Sure, it can be done, but a lot of things we take for granted like powerful consoles with custom hardware that are available for less than a comparable PC on their launch date will be impossible. There are pros and cons for each approach, and for the sake of innovation, both should be possible and allowed to compete in the marketplace. Let consumers vote with their wallets instead of playing market cop.

Specificaly Apple want jailbreaking to NOT be declared legal. They are not asking for it to be declared illegal.

If you bought a lawnmower and tried to use it as a hedge trimmer you deserve what you get, but since some recently fingerless moron sued the lawnmower company and WON now corporations need that kind of protection from our stupid legal system.

Sure as shit, some moron out there will get injured and call 911 on his jailbroken phone, it won't connect him to 911 or he'll pass out and the GPS won't work anymore so they can't find him and he'll sue Apple cause he did something perfectly legal to his phone, broke it and he got hurt when it didn't perform. AND HE WILL WIN if jailbreaking is declared legal.

So money/piracy/freedom isn't always the only issue for these kind of actions.

Originally posted by bokuwaomar:xoa, my concern isn't that people will pirate more, but that developers will simply produce unlicensed software, making it impossible (or at least more difficult) for console makers to subsidize their hardware.

I didn't mean to specifically single out piracy there at all bokuwaomar. Piracy is only semi-connected to my point which would remain even more so for developers that don't license, namely that the general population of people who would "jailbreak" if said mod requires even a small degree of effort is tiny. Sure, a developer could market such a game (they can right now actually), but then they'll have to get by without a dev kit (which is practically impossible at least at system launch and for a while afterwards) and they'll have a potential audience that's a fraction of a percent of the overall platform installed base. Do you really think any remotely serious commercial developer is going to try to pinch pennies on licensing fees when that means going from millions of possible customers to thousands? Not likely, at least not until towards the end of the console's life cycle.

Even taking into account businesses that would spring up (and already exist) that would offer to sell pre-hacked systems, said systems would still cost more then just buying new and carry more risk and I think most people would not buy them anyway until everything has gotten extremely cheap.

In the case of consoles, the technical protection doesn't really seem to need any legal help whatsoever. It serves its purpose admirably, which is to be enough of a hurdle that most people won't bother. The small percentage on the tail, the enthusiasts and hardware tinkerers and so on, they'll always crack it and aren't worth worrying about anyway. Perfection is not the goal, "good enough while cheap enough" is fine, and I don't think the console makers face much threat there, except from themselves if they made the mistake of getting draconian in the name of that last unstoppable percentage.

To all of the people who say "we have a license to use the software." I am willing to bet the receipts I have for software I've purchased in the past list it as a purchase. If this is the case, I've been deceived, either by the publisher or by the store.

Shame on Apple for arguing that an access control mechanism is the same as a copyright control mechanism. There is no copyright being violated by the act of jailbreaking, and there are so countless legitimate uses for gaining access to the device that don't involve copyright violation, that Apple's making quite a specious argument. It reflects poorly on them that they are trying to set this nasty precedent of expanding the meaning of the DMCA to cover mere access to the device by the owner and user. As for the MAFIAA, I've come to expect such consumer-hostile behavior from them, so no surprise there.

Originally posted by lost_soul:To all of the people who say "we have a license to use the software." I am willing to bet the receipts I have for software I've purchased in the past list it as a purchase. If this is the case, I've been deceived, either by the publisher or by the store.

Nah, you've been deceived by copyright law.

Every book you have, every DVD, every CD, is listed as a sale, but in terms of the CONTENT on each you actually have a license since you don't literally own The Lion King or what have you.

One can make this argument in court then. If I sell you a television and I give you a receipt with it, you would assume (as any sane person would) that you own the whole TV. The LCD belongs to you, the speakers belong to you, and so on. It is hard to sell someone a car, but still claim ownership of the parts. If the companies like Apple insist on doing this, they should be forbidden from using words like "buy" "sale" "own" etc, as this is done to hide the truth. They can't have it both ways. Either it's a sale, and the user can run GPL'd code on it, or it's a rental and the user can't open it.

Originally posted by lost_soul:One can make this argument in court then. If I sell you a television and I give you a receipt with it, you would assume (as any sane person would) that you own the whole TV. The LCD belongs to you, the speakers belong to you, and so on. It is hard to sell someone a car, but still claim ownership of the parts. If the companies like Apple insist on doing this, they should be forbidden from using words like "buy" "sale" "own" etc, as this is done to hide the truth. They can't have it both ways. Either it's a sale, and the user can run GPL'd code on it, or it's a rental and the user can't open it.

It's not only Apple though. What about the Wii, XBox 360, PS3, PS2, etc. Anything "locked" to only allow licensed content?

Heck, what about DVD players, BluRay players, etc?

This has been going on for, oh, at least 20 years now. Apple has 20 years of "history" on it's side.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. This sort of tactic is used with all the products you mentioned. I do not see this as an attempt to protect copyright, but as an attempt to stop consumers from upgrading/improving the feature set of their own hardware. I could compile Quake 3 for my Ipod, or use a cheating device for a console game to change the way the game behaves. In both cases, I am increasing the value of something I purchased, without paying to do so.

You can't turn a CD player into a DVD player, but you could turn an Iphone into so many things through the use of third-party software. Apple loses the ability to sell you those features though if you do this.

The above arguments are very interesting. At the end of the day, all you need to do is NOT BUY STUFF FROM APPLE. I can't stand it when lounge chair lawyers try to "fight for the rights of the every day citizen". When was the last time any of you was in a court room arguing for consumer rights? When was the last time any of you stood up at a board meeting and declared to your company, this in not "how we roll"? In today's economic climate, all of you should be thankful to innovative companies like Apple actually making stuff people like and trying to generate some form of economic activity. Unless you are willing to join the fight for consumer rights, SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!

First, the question of whether cell phones like the iPhone are open or closed is really, really important. Cell phones are overtaking the PC as the dominant computing platform. This is evident in the rich world, but it's also true for places without phone lines or consistent power, where cell phones provide access to and participation in the digital economy and society. Over the past 30 years we have seen the overwhelming benefit of an open hardware platform (the PC), open software platforms (including Windows and Mac OS), and an open Internet based on open protocols. All of those are at risk in the cell phone era, and DRM is one of the prime tools used to keep these things locked down. The Carterfone decision made modems possible for goodness sake - do we want to roll back the clock?

Second, legal enforcement of DRM is a regulatory intervention that supports some business models at the expense of others. A business model is really a way of competing in the market. But the market is there for our benefit, not the benefit of Apple. Market competition is a mechanism we use to regulate companies; it's not something we institute for their benefit. Apple and others don't have the automatic right to government enforcement of whatever business models suit them.

Third, copyright is meant to encourage artists. DRM, as on the iPhone, is not used for the benefit of artists. As I recall, Apple used the blacklist facility on the iPhone to shut down an application they saw as competing with iTunes. If you are an artist, that means the only way you can reach your audience on the iPhone is by playing by Apple's rules. Media companies have always leveraged control of distribution into control of artists, something that is certainly not in the benefit of artists. Such an application of copyright does exactly the opposite of what copyright is supposed to do.

[quote]Sure as shit, some moron out there will get injured and call 911 on his jailbroken phone, it won't connect him to 911 or he'll pass out and the GPS won't work anymore so they can't find him and he'll sue Apple cause he did something perfectly legal to his phone, broke it and he got hurt when it didn't perform. AND HE WILL WIN if jailbreaking is declared legal.[/]

While I can only hope that this is a rare scenario, the fact that it could happen has exactly zero bearing on whether or not the DMCA should exempt jailbreaking an iPhone. There are morons out there. Period. This fact should not dictate law. Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I'd like to think that this country didn't set up a judicial system for the primary purpose of rewarding stupidity. Unfortunately, that's the route we take. Burn your lap on coffee? Here's some money. There was water on the floor of a restaurant, and you slipped because you weren't watching where you were going? Here's some money.

This kind of attitude, exempting the individual from responsibility, is a bigger issue than Apple and the iPhone. As such, some concocted scenario about how a guy who decided to jailbreak his iPhone rendered him unable to call 911...well, it really has nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with the guy who borked his cell.

If scenarios centered around the worst-case of human stupidity are going to dictate how everyone else is permitted to live their lives, we're screwed before Apple has the chance to sue.